Abstract
The problem of incomplete questionnaire response is a vexing one to researchers who rely on data collected by mail surveys. Using a sample of 23,350 potential respondents, a mail survey experiment was performed to test two survey-concurrent means for decreasing item omission. Combinations of survey sponsorship and anonymity assurance were found that significantly improved questionnaire completion in demographic groups that have been previously identified as most prone to item non-response. An analysis of trade-offs between response rates and item completion was performed and recommendations for survey sponsorship and anonymity conditions are developed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
G. Becker and D. A. Bakal, “Subject Anonymity and Motivational Distortion in Self-Report Data,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26 (1970), 207–209.
C. S. Craig and J. M. McCann, “Item Nonresponse in Mail Surveys: Extent and Correlates,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (1978), 285–289.
M. N. Donald, “Implications of Non-response for the Interpretation of Mail Questionnaire Data,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 24 (1960), 99–114.
R. Ferber, “Item Nonresponse in a Consumer Survey,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (1966), 399–415.
C. Fuller, “Effect of Anonymity on Return Rate and Response Bias in a Mail Survey,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (1974), 292–296.
J. D. Francis and L. Busch, “What We Now Know About I Don’t Knows,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 39 (1975), 207–218.
M. J. Houston and N. M. Ford, “Broadening the Scope of Methodological Research on Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (1976), 397–403.
M. J. Houston and J. R. Nevin, “The Effects of Source and Appeal on Mail Survey Response Patterns,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (1977), 374–378.
W. H. Jones and G. Linda, “Multiple Criteria Effects in a Mail Survey Experiment,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (1978), 280–284.
L. Kanuk and C. Berenson, “Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review,” Journal of Marketing Research,” 12 (1975), 440–453.
R. A. Kerin and R. A. Peterson, “Personalization, Respondent Anonymity and Response Distortion in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (1977), 86–89.
A. S. Linsky, “Stimulating Responses to Mailed Questionnaires: A Review,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 39 (1975), 82–101.
R. A. Peterson, “An Experimental Investigation of Mail Survev Responses,” Journal of Business Research, 3 (1975), 199–210.
C. Scott, “Research on Mail Surveys,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 124 (1969), 142–191.
J. A. Sonquist and W. C. Dunkelberg, Survey and Opinion Research: Procedures for Processing and Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977).
F. Wiseman, “A Reassessment of the Effects of Personalization on Response Patterns in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (1976), 110–111.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Academy of Marketing Science
About this paper
Cite this paper
Jones, W.H. (2016). Decreasing Item Omissions from Reluctant Survey Respondents. In: Gitlow, H.S., Wheatley, E.W. (eds) Proceedings of the 1979 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16934-7_53
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16934-7_53
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16933-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16934-7
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)